Carbon burial is increasingly valued as a service provided by threatened vegetated coastal habitats. Similarly, shellfish reefs contain significant pools of carbon and are globally endangered, yet considerable uncertainty remains regarding shellfish reefs' role as sources (+) or sinks (−) of atmospheric CO ₂ . While CO ₂ release is a by-product of carbonate shell production (then burial), shellfish also facilitate atmospheric-CO ₂ drawdown via filtration and rapid biodeposition of carbon-fixing primary producers. We provide a framework to account for the dual burial of inorganic and organic carbon, and demonstrate that decade-old experimental reefs on intertidal sandflats were net sources of CO ₂ (7.1 ± 1.2 MgC ha ⁻¹ yr ⁻¹ (µ ± s.e.)) resulting from predominantly carbonate deposition, whereas shallow subtidal reefs (−1.0 ± 0.4 MgC ha ⁻¹ yr ⁻¹ ) and saltmarsh-fringing reefs (−1.3 ± 0.4 MgC ha ⁻¹ yr ⁻¹ ) were dominated by organic-carbon-rich sediments and functioned as net carbon sinks (on par with vegetated coastal habitats). These landscape-level differences reflect gradients in shellfish growth, survivorship and shell bioerosion. Notably, down-core carbon concentrations in 100- to 4000-year-old reefs mirrored experimental-reef data, suggesting our results are relevant over centennial to millennial scales, although we note that these natural reefs appeared to function as slight carbon sources (0.5 ± 0.3 MgC ha ⁻¹ yr ⁻¹ ). Globally, the historical mining of the top metre of shellfish reefs may have reintroduced more than 400 000 000 Mg of organic carbon into estuaries. Importantly, reef formation and destruction do not have reciprocal, counterbalancing impacts on atmospheric CO ₂ since excavated organic material may be remineralized while shell may experience continued preservation through reburial. Thus, protection of existing reefs could be considered as one component of climate mitigation programmes focused on the coastal zone.

Much of the United States’ critical infrastructure is either aging or requires significant repair, leaving U.S. communities and the economy vulnerable. Outdated and dilapidated infrastructure places coastal communities, in particular, at risk from the increasingly frequent and intense coastal storm events and rising sea levels. Therefore, investments in coastal infrastructure are urgently needed to ensure community safety and prosperity; however, these investments should not jeopardize the ecosystems and natural resources that underlie economic wealth and human well-being. Over the past 50 years, efforts have been made to integrate built infrastructure with natural landscape features, often termed “green” infrastructure, in order to sustain and restore valuable ecosystem functions and services. For example, significant advances have been made in implementing green infrastructure approaches for stormwater management, wastewater treatment, and drinking water conservation and delivery. However, the implementation of natural and nature-based infrastructure (NNBI) aimed at flood prevention and coastal erosion protection is lagging. There is an opportunity now, as the U.S. government reacts to the recent, unprecedented flooding and hurricane damage and considers greater infrastructure investments, to incorporate NNBI into coastal infrastructure projects. Doing so will increase resilience and provide critical services to local communities in a cost-effective manner and thereby help to sustain a growing economy.

Nature‐based solutions, such as living shorelines, have the potential to restore critical ecosystems, enhance coastal sustainability, and increase resilience to natural disasters; however, their efficacy during storm events compared to traditional hardened shorelines is largely untested. This is a major impediment to their implementation and promotion to policy‐makers and homeowners. To address this knowledge gap, we evaluated rock sill living shorelines as compared to natural marshes and hardened shorelines (i.e., bulkheads) in North Carolina, USA for changes in surface elevation, Spartina alterniflora stem density, and structural damage from 2015 to 2017, including before and after Hurricane Matthew (2016). Our results show that living shorelines exhibited better resistance to landward erosion during Hurricane Matthew than bulkheads and natural marshes. Additionally, living shorelines were more resilient than hardened shorelines, as they maintained landward elevation over the two‐year study period without requiring any repair. Finally, rock sill living shorelines were able to enhance S. alterniflora stem densities over time when compared to natural marshes. Our results suggest that living shorelines have the potential to improve coastal resilience while supporting important coastal ecosystems.

In the United States, extensive investments have been made to restore the ecological function and services of coastal marine habitats. Despite a growing body of science supporting coastal restoration, few studies have addressed the suite of societally enabling conditions that helped facilitate successful restoration and recovery efforts that occurred at meaningful ecological (i.e., ecosystem) scales, and where restoration efforts were sustained for longer (i.e., several years to decades) periods. Here, we examined three case studies involving large-scale and long-term restoration efforts including the seagrass restoration effort in Tampa Bay, Florida, the oyster restoration effort in the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland and Virginia, and the tidal marsh restoration effort in San Francisco Bay, California. The ecological systems and the specifics of the ecological restoration were not the focus of our study. Rather, we focused on the underlying social and political contexts of each case study and found common themes of the factors of restoration which appear to be important for maintaining support for large-scale restoration efforts. Four critical elements for sustaining public and/or political support for large-scale restoration include: (1) resources should be invested in building public support prior to significant investments into ecological restoration; (2) building political support provides a level of significance to the recovery planning efforts and creates motivation to set and achieve meaningful recovery goals; (3) recovery plans need to be science-based with clear, measurable goals that resonate with the public; and (4) the accountability of progress toward reaching goals needs to be communicated frequently and in a way that the general public comprehends. These conclusions may help other communities move away from repetitive, single, and seemingly unconnected restoration projects towards more large-scale, bigger impact, and coordinated restoration efforts.

Coastal marine habitats continue to be degraded, thereby compelling large‐scale restoration in many parts of the world. Whether restored habitats function similarly to natural habitats and fully recover lost ecosystem services is unclear. In estuaries, oyster reefs have been degraded by multiple anthropogenic activities including destructive fishing practices and reduced water quality, motivating restoration to maintain oyster fisheries and other ecosystem services, often at relatively high cost. We compared fish and invertebrate communities on recently restored (0–1 year post‐restoration), older restored (3–4 years post‐restoration), and natural oyster reefs to determine if and when restored reefs support functionally similar faunal communities. To test the influence of landscape setting on the faunal communities, the restored and natural reefs, as well as a control without reef present, were distributed among three landscapes (on the edge of salt marsh away from seagrass [salt marsh landscape], on mudflats [mudflat landscape], and near to seagrass and salt marsh [seagrass landscape]). Oyster density and biomass were greatest on restored reef habitat, as were those of non‐oyster bivalve species. Total abundance of invertebrates was much greater on oyster reefs than in control plots, regardless of reef or landscape type, yet were frequently highest on older restored reefs. Meanwhile, juvenile fish densities were greatest on natural reefs, at intermediate densities on older restored reefs, and least abundant on controls. When comparing the effects of reef age and landscape setting, juvenile fish densities were greatest on younger reefs within the mudflat landscape. Collectively, these results indicate that oyster reefs harbor higher densities of resident invertebrate prey, which may explain why reef habitat is also important for juvenile fish. Laboratory and field experiments supported the notion that gag grouper (a predatory demersal fish) forage more effectively on oyster reefs than on unstructured mud bottom, whereas our experiments suggest that flounders that utilize oyster reefs likely forage on adjacent mud bottom. Because landscape setting influenced fish and invertebrate communities on restored reefs, the ecological consequences of landscape setting should be incorporated into restoration decision making and site selection to enhance the recovery of ecosystem goods and services.